September 25th...

Got a badass PC???

Prepare to prove it.

You sure you' re not thinking of Halo 3 when you say Sept. 25th? I thought Crysis was November.

EDIT: nevermind you meant the single player demo.

Also, I do intend to prove my PC is badass. I' m currently getting about 80fps with Bioshock at 1280x1024 with maxed settings. It' s pretty.

Also, I do intend to prove my PC is badass. I' m currently getting about 80fps with Bioshock at 1280x1024 with maxed settings. It' s pretty.

What kind of screen are you running? 19" ?

Woulda thought you would go with a nice 22" widescreen samsung.

What kind of screen are you running? 19

Yeah, it' s an LG something or other. I bought it July 2006, I figured 1280x1024 was a nice resolution for games. I didn' t want to go too high and end up having trouble running my games at decent settings. Back then I had a 7600GT. I was waiting for the DX 10 cards so I had to be conservative. The other thing too is that back then games were only just starting to support widescreen and I didn' t want the hassle.

I' m thinking of getting a widescreen soon but I' m not too happy with the options available. LCD technology is maturing very rapidly, this time next year I' ll be able to get someting far better and cheaper than what we can get now. So I have no problem waiting. Besides my screen is still pretty nice. It was at the high end for it' s size when I bought it.

I want a 1920x1200 (1080p), but I would almost need another 8800GTX for SLI to play at the same quality and performance. That would be a 1400$+ investment. Umm...no. I' ll wait until next year.

85fps is impressive actually.. what CPU and Ram you have AG?

My CPU is just a X2 4600+ @2.6Ghz and I have 4GB of OCZ 6400 ram. I' m also running Windows Vista. I should make clear that I' m not getting a steady 80 fps it just seems to like the 80' s, but 90% of the time it stays between 60-90. Bioshock is not too CPU intensive and it' s extremely well optimised. In general though a gamer should spend 2 to 3 times more for his videocard than for his CPU. The gamer with a 200$ CPU and a 600$ GPU will always play at higher settings than the gamer with a 600$ CPU and a 200$ GPU.

Next year, I' m getting a Quad core, I' m considering both Intel and AMD. It will be AMD' s Barcelona up against Intel' s Penryn. Clock for clock AMD will have the more powerful chip. However, Intel will be on a 45nm proccess against AMD' s 65nm, which will allow for higher clock speeds. Penryns will be performance bottlenecked at higher speeds due to a limited front bus, throwing cache at the problem won' t help much especially for a quad core.

My money is on Barcelona. Initial clock speeds might not be too good though. I' ll wait until AMD can bring them up to 3Ghz before I make any decisions. If I can bring a X4 Phenom chip (Barcelona) to 3.2-3.8 with water cooling it should be fucking sweet.

On the other hand everyone should wait for Intel' s Nehalem (after penryn). Essentially the Core 3. Penryn is just a refresh from Conroe, but Nehalem should be something special. If AMD will die Nehalem will be the chip that will kill them. When this comes out next year AMD will be fucked, they won' t have anything to pit against it.

September 25th...

Got a badass PC???

Prepare to prove it.

Mine should have arrived by then!

Agent your updateing already?

If I had that pc of yours I would at least keep it [at its current settings] for 2 years.

Agent your updateing already?

No, next year.

EDIT: When I was getting roughly 80fps I had Gloabal lighting turned on. I thought that meant more advanced lighting but it means the opposite. Essentially it means to have realtime shadows off if enabled. Once I turned it off my fps dropped to around 60fps. Depending on the environment it can go as low as 30fps or stay as a high as 130.